RECEIVENWFRC

DEC 2 0 2012INM G E ON o O

mmo<ee.

BY

v

6¼¼e oE f\oriòct

cw&* cas4 4 f)//- 12

PeM¼oneeó JorscMoneA EdeG

on Feviese Geom Svt est6& c.ooev of ap½ oF ,fouc¼ á6Víck ( $ oke_ 09 ŸLorido')

Sobm¼be

ANot%wt9eFlo appor

òuges. mcan un

W55 sawwü«we

C-hp\ , FL 3dW

LEGA

7C&>L o e s

T%K 09 C-+anons

ahe_menk 09 k¼t Cose e 23 2

ommoe 09 ¼vt Argumen

risdie.*conov s½¥esvt

Acopmers -

cgome

$hootd C_c>\\oa.9 oveshon de enden hk

16 (toe_ roe Pecse assiswn r ounsa tvm whenCoonset 60.5 rnculs/sced deGendu¥s cxosweg.

0400$1o()

e l¾%cokt oE 3e£.vic€_

A_s oFoton to , ggy

LEGAL

90D So 2d 596 Fla og ya bcA Sco4

Const or¥ V. é 3 and 6

F ø g, oPr Nyewer peatedwt 9. tao

Csq. % ¼ ad \%1 FLa pq a

35 V· î*CM l'-19 So.2d 1145, Fl OcA 1499

mMen v S¼t 86o So ps jc2gCæb6 V Florider 8go so2d 648

Nxon v &ndo 643 vs /75 Aco9

Cx\and v coasknjen . 966 vs 667 197¥

0 G6+ Amendmt;* 6 md M

s¾+L So.,23 Jiag

kamù U...

ch¼e.:ceven¼. cyÇ ¾¾L Cast and facts

cp\ is at €,eSu\+Oom o- Somm(׶ SE44 °

Cigge\\on43 Ser..-ood Amenkd Ro\L ¼0 9on C_cmichort NW

The cá:3se... ocíopches in s;×*mbeado c.o , FLocide cshe,ccchtŸendont Fejmond W Indoco wr45 m on NovembeR

2003 Çot ½L moedes.. e4 Ro,ov Root, ww&v caas caegedto hout occorred on oe.*obe( ai, 2003 in wtst pA\m beach

orích CES)

ori bece,mbeL \Ý .2003, ct ofoad jur ft+va×d a

two c_ount TnaiL4men+, Unocofo3 defendo.n¥ wi¼ Ñ€&-

de.oje,e. mondec to® a Ñ€eorm mi %.obber w¼e^ Neorm(K M,)5), A woáves.. of dekodoAs speed rica wce %\ed

Aped 1* 2004. Ap eut Q\ed o< no¼ce ce.opa&noy deckh penai

on joi 1a* 2004 41). 6oüd no* ocoones-d ¼et pene

wootd no bc SetV"nS we deo#n eeg vn & Insic·o C2CK·40

'¾_ cMendcA+ ogptoced btGoce_ ¼( \ower Sor 30eg kid

on Novembee 30, 2005 (TV 41). A ç>cme\ wo.s S€.\eeJe-d wrmout

objection on be..tembe-r 2, 2005 C TV i.370 ). The Case waóSubmiw4.d to ½e jorg on bec4mber 2005 (.T.V%51),5)eror-

To so w3 ¾e tc>st A pee..ute- Nok prossed C-ovu II; Robbesuw, c esem CTV † 739), we & Sw_, , ½<- jur g

verét¥ o9 be4coð.- deyce. murder 00 Ñ€Nm)A

lesse - rne-\vded tho«gt CA 125, D5), Tnc 4cu C-oAQe or Sen+€4CA°) on 0°'^°°d9 13*i , 2006 C T. V9; 970 )

On e o

senyenced 4o h

c ). TherecS L( . The L 0 d defendc45

d re.cJe ecA OG o 9aco7 po9r C

€:> 45ve o o oC

ec rnohon Follows

Age\\o4\¼ V eVolWnC>06 3 50 mo on

b add,on oQ os Gop erde Oc o Ganoo oho

rucó omended to % o S Cedo663 Lgod C\o.e &no3 ¼£ groui\ds •

OG (Ebtoog 28, 30 SMS ¼Foe_ rno¥on os cue\\ 06 ho-v sabrnated &€ 6n&L Ff4crd o4

ncludìn +cw\+canscc‡ for Review

on moc& %, adh, nocc,«_ Judµ 5ohn £. ½:>6¥cenedesenie¢ed ordea denfn3 roeC CODQ, ïnc.oepocc.snS½L owcwøers tot CESpo0St¾i dhdopted 4412, £hoàe3 f<óponst od %c "00°r%·5 ÑfdA3S

QCh Bod Cone\ustons oC \aw",

oh OwoCL 6fr % ceder denyg CGef, o¶p@û* Su

a sworn e€ppow cesponse on mo-cen % JoL ®er c< S

T to, d&pn½%eC, ¼çe\\odt ¼me subseed o m on o

nos l kh Ò on moseth \ 2e\\, rec v65¼3 ¼* 4.. kp

ConsideAe-d u a. Schec-øg.

On TY\OFJvv 2 LI , do\\ ; k¼t CICV

.6 no T<·.

On MOF£h 3b 2OR ,Sendon+ PMd h6 vy¥øv ScieF ofQPPCl\CuYb

On $ppamber olOlR ¼ courts 1ssued j+ opinion wi+bItis deni\c

on Sep+er©er eEendant fikÁ for a reheooT9

o n ochober **', 2 0 z+ æ deed

on Alo%mbeg I A mond, m iSSM

on l\/ov EmbRr 10* 2012 cs Nowq to \nvoK6 06c-rctionod on csas saed ans +ss s«çc rougss

L

sommen.3 o

a a oma

Cousel Sor Scú\unc Ao Cc culp o< dek se

esso. derrendan¥ cmscocaea c_.o e n n

^ ^ En EGCÀ' ff C245 Cow£€l (pho n $ed def d

O o C (p i¾l€$S6$, Ol5 SVff0't'& bry 4¼© Soc of CCCol

p9 . r

Rí$Òi C_. NOGCA\ Emer\¼-

3 Cooc¥ has ås:r@onai¶ òumsdicjvon -ro genew

dee_coron, and ¾vt coor¾ ê>hoofd EAe4CM ¼cku saic.Mon 1o Cm1sider the_ rnee3ts of +hc fiN+ìoñers

ent, unde€_ g_uic 4 (20 Cb) Flor,dos Eult oGam qwoc£dorC.

LEGAL

U

Tht Cjutshon i6 mok w<od¼eR deBendowf cmswegd

The C-ol\ocq c|vehon , yes or wo bu4 N eR. Shoo Co//oq

C|veshon denie.d c}er

OkSS(S¾0rnCl oŸ C4vnSe\ C\Casn vvken CounSel c^cl\nsed gad in lvencµc]

deSendan½ omswuc

C€. %L '\* bt, cynion stoke's ,½L \oweA C bGlueS+1oned C†fKhn - a% \ hkh Cu:>ouŸ CAYOf S CQÍ

Ü€Cision No*+o Ca\\ osnj cwne-S5, to which defendan+ Oofeed

Uncle£ his awotned rJvøt, whrA ¼L Cour+ Showd have- oced is

(Aky deSenàotn† hcs 6+c¼d" unde-c my c>rocq o yo San

10 SPjS , The Li* Den heid, a geni æg ç

omt ochon or inoc¥on bj de-GensL cooni€l was †C(C+ical /6GeneAcai inaptoprìoh€- withour oso evidentig hearg on a 3360 mot o

*RL ¼© 4* Dca onderscores wea appenon¥s særea,

Ssutancc Conset claim inVolvtC c†µllank d€f-L(loo svo+ *> call An

n Sk5 bcsed un†n ¾chcal And $4ra+e9ïc denmons ham 4rrül couns

T-n hs'Q, Me^dan4 diè nov we e p

C dekendm+ did nV Ca any wi¼eases, unde« adv seD oA Counsa\,

\occ To cm e ex

rne ec¼e- ass,nc 16 *t W\4ee35 c-ould have. been

, And tvot di s coven b eo Nor o u CouM bgSore. s>ee gggge

\£ C-Ouck wh\ QCCept

Th s ots a. \og me-n'5 e c#Pel

U

whe..n goor e o

our C»c 4° unfvafhe wa Cm a- NowC-he<.. eno echan\cMr gooLC-0

-54 Le_fense. Counse 4a orl3wee

¼,_ c..ev\og queswo in ¼( rnopve.- cµhen C4 n3 f5

ۀw 9 wi+ne uld howe_, C-honjd , 00f d

See f r, v xon , <guog Mncxdood v coashingfor)

&#1awa

when yve inàoos As\y hoae4 om attor$ -ro reps, + hki te v,hu eaoc$ mede o. hugt mìshw by A>o¥ C_awngej o w+nesses +o zmpeoc½ nad for da prout +/« s+agso +ness agawr defendæ+.

e

a n e

e PrseA nd Cr deA+uor hpomn au & L le)

1

A) A

ock Rec pHon ¼+el %plo ed for maiyn nne. Cnp b

or enescq is25 PoimBe s a wl. west am ocordJ HoL knc og Coqq% Floc do. Supre»w Coac4, 50uvash Taueanassa Flodda 323

È

r

I

1

uo e e a c

4 5 S kensvoe

2

1

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDAFOURTH DISTRICTJuly Tenn 2012

RAYMOND ALLEN McINDOO,Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,Appellee.

No. 4D11-1442

[September 5, 2012]

WARNER, J.

We affirm the denial of appellant's motion for postconviction reliefpursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We address oneissue, namely his claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to call aspecific witness at trial who was available to testify and would refute thetestimony of the co-defendant's statements regarding appellant'sinvolvement in the crime. In his motion, appellant claims that he toldhis attorney of this witness but the attorney refused to call him. Heclaims he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on this issue. We disagreebecause, as the state notes, the claim is conclusively refuted by therecord.

At trial after tlie state rested its case, the trial court questionedappellant at length about his decision not to call witnesses. The courttold him that he had the right Lc call witnesses awl asked whether hehad discussed the tactical advantages to calling or not calling witnesseswith his attorney. Appellarit stated that he had discussed it with hisattorney. The court specifically asked whether he had been coerced orpromised any result by not calling witnesses, to which appellantresponded no. He admitted to the court that his determination not tocall witnesses was of his own free will, and he was satisfied with hisattorney's representation.

Because his sworn motion indicates that he was aware of the witnessand that witness's testimony prior to trial, the colloquy to the courtconclusively refutes his claim that his attorney failed to call a knownwitness against the appellant's wishes. He is bound by his answers to

the court. See Terrell v. State, 9 So. 3d 1284, 1288-89 (Fla. 4th DCA2009) (defendant was bound by his answers to the court's colloquy thathe did not want to call any witnesses, defeating his claim that hiscounsel failed to investigate and call a witness known to the defendantprior to trial).

Rollins v. State, 997 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), relied upon byappellant, is distinguishable. There, we held that the defendant'sanswers to the trial court's question as to whether he would be callingany witnesses did not conclusively refute the allegations in hispostconviction motion that .counsel failed to investigate and depose threewitnesses who would. testify that the defendant did not commit thecharged crimes. While the colloquy is not set forth in the opinion, ourreliance on Law v. State, 847 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), suggeststhat the trial court questioned Rollins on his right to testify and not onhis right to call witnesses. We found that the court may have left Rollinswith the impression that it was too late to call witnesses. Rollins, 997So. 2d at 1289. Here, there is no such ambiguity. The trial courtquestioned appellant both on his decision not to testify and again on hisdecision not to call witnesses. The court clearly told the appellant hehad the right to call witnesses on his behalf. Appellant could not havebeen confused about his right to call witnesses. He simply elected not topresent them.

We affirm all remaining issues on appeal.

POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.

* * *

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court forthe Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Pahn Beach County; John S. Kastrenakes,Judge; L.T. Case No. 2003CF012673AXX.

Raymond Allen McIndoo, Immokalee, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melynda L.Melear, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Not final until disposition of timelyfiled motionfor rehearing.

2